Mini 771 - Mafia in Ludd: Game Over

[Xdaamno]

Vote: Green Crayons

wagon '09 wooooo

Page 2 Votecount

camn (2/7): Patrick, Korts
charter (1/7): camn
DizzyIzzyB13 (0/7):
Ether (0/7):
Green Crayons (1/7): Xdaamno
Incognito (1/7): Ether,
Korts (1/7): DizzyIzzyB13
OhGodMyLife (0/7):
Patrick (1/7): Incognito
skitzer (1/7): charter
Xdaamno (0/7):
Yosarian2 (1/7): Green Crayons

Not voting (3/12):

OhGodMyLife, skitzer, Yosarian2

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline

[Xdaamno]

...after reading everyone's posts, the person who seemed the least pro-town to me, by some tiny percentage, was Xyl, since this was his only post to date:

Vote: Green Crayons

wagon '09 wooooo

I suppose you mean me?

I try not to post unless I have something useful to be doing, because it's actually an effort for me to not look scummy. I get lynched all the time.

[Xdaamno]

It seems to me that Incog is trying to undermine a valid point made by Korts in 23 with nothing more than bad vibes.

This surprises me; last time we played together I remember you using just vibes semi-often to express suspicion of people. Do you feel vibes aren't legitimate (especially this early)? For the record, I can see where he's coming from there; Kort's interpretation didn't seem the most natural to me either and something about the immediate vote seems marginally off.

This post is scummy. You seem to be thinking up points of attack, rather than noticing something that actually piques your interest. Most people wouldn't assume a "semi-often" mild behaviour in a game you played awile ago with someone actually meant anything (plus, I personally don't store meta information in this way, instead I just remember what that person was like, as if we knew each other in real life.)

Phrases like "for the record", "didn't seem the most natural to me" and "seems marginally off" also fit with this hypothesis; he's not being honest in his attacks.

Early

Unvote, Vote: Patrick

[Xdaamno]

This post is scummy. You seem to be thinking up points of attack, rather than noticing something that actually piques your interest. Most people wouldn't assume a "semi-often" mild behaviour in a game you played awile ago with someone actually meant anything (plus, I personally don't store meta information in this way, instead I just remember what that person was like, as if we knew each other in real life.)

Not sure why you put in "a while ago", this game was invitational 10, pretty recent. OGML was replaced quite early, but during his stay in the game alot of his suspicions were quite vague with a fair amount of vibes or gut type stuff. Sure, I guess it's possible he's had a drastic change of philosophy since then and now hates vibes, but it seems unlikely, and I don't see why you felt the need to cut across this at all. Why wouldn't it mean anything? What are you arguing?

Phrases like "for the record", "didn't seem the most natural to me" and "seems marginally off" also fit with this hypothesis; he's not being honest in his attacks.

This is just the way I post. It's not gonna change.

Yeah, wasn't asking you to change. I was just making an observation.

Fairly town reaction, I think...

[Xdaamno]

unvote, vote Dizzy

You just said you that it's untrue that you aren't scumhunting, then in the next sentence say you haven't added anything. Instead of adding something, you just come back with that post (which just seems like an "I'm here" post and don't ask anyone questions or nothing). I also looked back at your posts, you haven't asked anyone any probing questions or nothing (I guess that falls under not scumhunting) but you've talked about skitzer not confirming at length. Why is skitzer's confirmation time more interesting than questioning people?

This is

page 4

- you think not scumhunting yet is unusual? She hardly talked about it "at length", anyway, and that wouldn't be a scum tell if so - it was the very start of the game, so it's not unnatural to talk about things like that.

[Xdaamno]

X, clarify your Patrick interaction for me because this is how I'm reading it:

Patrick's posting style (including those phrases you pointed out) make it look like he's just making up points to engage/attack other players. This is because he doesn't actually see anything that grabs his attention, but he feels it is necessary to speak up about some point, even if it's entirely contrived. This is dishonest and scummy.

However

, you do not want him to change this dishonest and scummy behavior. And somehow, by asserting that he will not change his play style because he finds it to be a perfectly acceptable mode of play, you think he's town.

Basically:
X: Patrick is doing Action Y! It's scummy!
Patrick: Actually, I don't find Action Y to be scummy at all.
X: Patrick is doing Action Y! He's town!


It looks like to me you just threw something out there to see if it would stick. You get to look active without chancing having to commit to anything. Once Patrick basically said the exact opposite of you, you pulled a 180 and shut down the conversation.

What do you mean? If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it? I'd want them to continue doing what they are doing, so we can be more sure they are scum and so we can lynch them.

Also, I wasn't asserting that patrick was scum in my post. I just got a scum read off one post, and a town read off another. I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was.

(please reply)

[Xdaamno]

pfffft

What do you mean? If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it? I'd want them to continue doing what they are doing, so we can be more sure they are scum and so we can lynch them.

Your post suggested that Patrick's posting was suspicious and scummy. Patrick explains that's how he always plays and finds it good and reasonable. That means it's how he plays - regardless of alignment. By you saying that you don't want him to change his play style means that you want his play style to be scummy and suspicious to you regardless of his alignment. You don't even make a concession that this might not be a good thing. Instead, it's like you're actively hoping to be in camn's shoes where you have a consistently skewed read on

charter

Patrick.

I never actually asked Patrick to change his playstyle, anyway. I simply stated that I did not suggest he change his playstyle. This was as a rebuttal to his "I'm not gonna change" defense, so I was not actually implying anything. The only "do not change" statement I made was, quote, "If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it?" Big difference.

Also, your argument says that I implicitly but intentionally implied that I wanted patrick to be scum under any circumstances. Why would I, as scum, want to say that?

Also, I wasn't asserting that patrick was scum in my post. I just got a scum read off one post, and a town read off another. I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was.

This only confirms the feeling I got from your posts that you were throwing something out there just to see if anything would stick - in fact, you seem to be embracing that notion. I find this suspicious because of three reasons:
One, because it looks like you're doing exactly what you were calling Patrick out for (just coming up with reasons to criticize another player that you don't particularly believe).
Two, because it looks like you're attempting to look active without actually contributing (he's scummy/suspicious acting! + he's town acting! = useless/null read)
Three, since when did you need to vote someone simply to gauge their reaction to your suspicions? Seems like you're trying to explain it away after the fact.

unvote, vote: X

. While I think camn's weird refusal to answer (just about) anything put to her and general resistance to actually make a solid point (this being the fruit of our back and forth - so it wasn't all for naught), it's not something I will forget simply by unvoting. And maybe her future behavior will turn for the better when she gets her feet planted. Besides, I think my X suspicions are more substantive than those regarding camn.

Ignoring the fact you seem to think gauging reactions is equivilent to throwing shit at a wall, here's the rebuttal to your three points:

Your first point has no basis. What reason (disclaimer: in and of itself, ignore this if you're confused) do you have to believe I'm trying to make stuff up when attacking Patrick?
Your second point assumes I know what the results of my investigations would be before I actually performed them.
Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure.

(actually, that was tougher than I thought. The falsity of his statements was obvious, but the actual fallacies were tougher than I thought.)

[Xdaamno]

I could flip to Xdaamno or Korts. I'm all for Xdaamno accepting Patrick's defense--except that he's still voting him. Which is it? (For the record, Patrick's starting to feel better now, though I don't get why he interpretted my 76 as support.

After starting this aside with "for the record" I was half-tempted to load it with more qualifiers but I won't.

)

What reason could I have to unvote him? At this stage of the game, I don't use votes purely as an indicator of who I suspect.

[Xdaamno]

You said that you voted him because "it [applied] pressure" (103). He gave you a response that you seemed incredibly favorable towards. Whatever pressure that may have been needed (really, though? none) from a vote became obsolete as soon as you pulled your 180.

So, the reason for an unvote would be because your vote served its "purpose." Continuing to maintain your obsolete vote instead of simply unvoting for the time being is entirely pointless. But because the purpose you have given for your vote is a lie, you neglected to remove the vote.

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

You could argue the suspiscion is a negative because I am hurting the town by making myself look scummy arbitrarily, but I think that is balanced out by gaining trust because people agree with my logic, which I expect them to, turtles-all-the-way-down style.

As an aside, I have (thoroughly imo) shown that the basis for my vote was justified and not "a lie", and that pressuring was a seperate positive factor in my posts. Even if this wasn't true, and my posts were entirely for pressure, calling it a "lie" is still misleading and very ironic.

[Xdaamno]

I know it's a major part of your arguing style, but can you avoid being intellectually dishonest? I try and not make claims such as "...all this crap you're spewing" until I actually feel I have already proven why I believe that. You put those kind of things at the start of your argument, which is just annoying to read.

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

I read this as: "Here's a bunch of BS to explain why I didn't remove the vote because I made up the reason for the vote after the fact." I'm curious if anyone else sees it this way.

Dosen't need responding to, as I noted above.

If the vote was made to apply pressure (which it wasn't) and that pressure produced a result (a town read from Patrick's response), there is no reason to keep your vote there. It served its purpose and may lead people to think you think Patrick is still worth voting (even though the stated purpose of your vote has elapsed, you aren't questioning him any further and you seem content with your most recent label of him as performing town actions). Since at this point in the game you don't "use votes purely as an indicator of who [you] suspect" (120), your continued use of the vote for any purpose (pressure or suspicion indicator) doesn't make sense because no purpose continues to apply to the vote.

You're blatantly ignoring what I have said. I

showed why the vote could have some kind of purpose

, and said I wanted you to either

show me the benifet of removing it

, or

show why it cannot possibly have any value

. You have failed to do either. Yes, the vote is probably useless. However, that small chance of being useful (by some strange mechanic) in and of itself makes the vote useful. Read this paragraph until you understand what I am saying.

At the time of 'choosing' whether to unvote, I wasn't making a conscious decision. I was simply thinking "eh, this might help, there's no reason to remove it". I thought that if anyone was confused by my vote, I could explain my 'reasoning' later on. People do this all the time - even if my vote is being detrimental, which is ridiculous imo, it barely even matters, and so I chose to leave the vote where it is.

As an aside, I have (thoroughly imo) shown that the basis for my vote was justified and not "a lie", and that pressuring was a seperate positive factor in my posts.

Nope. You're starting to stink up this thread with all this crap you're spewing.

Blah blah blah...

GC: "Three, since when did you need to vote someone simply to gauge their reaction to your suspicions? Seems like you're trying to explain it away after the fact." (102)
X: "Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure." (103)
GC: "Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?" (111)
X:

No response given

.

Oh, I missed post 111 completely. I'll go back and respond to it. But first, take a look at this amazingly grievous mishap!:

This was as a rebuttal to his "I'm not gonna change" defense, so I was not actually implying anything.

The only "do not change" statement I made was, quote, "If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it?" Big difference.

The bolded part was left out completely! Dun dun DUNNN!

Even if this wasn't true, and

my posts

were entirely for pressure, calling it a "lie" is still misleading and very ironic.

(My emphasis.)
GC: "But because the

purpose you have given for your vote

is a lie, you neglected to remove the vote." (121 - My emphasis.)
I didn't call your post a lie, I called the after-the-fact purpose given for your vote (pressure on Patrick for him to answer) a lie. Nice attempt to shift the argument, but it isn't going to work.

Wait, so you think I was actually lying about what I thought your post meant? If not, you're blantantly trying to twist this point to your own, unfair advantage. If so, I'll respond again when you reply.

Responding to your other post now. I'd like to hear which side of this argument people in this thread are on, because I don't particularly want to continue it.

=======================

Page 6 Votecount

camn (1/7): Korts,
charter (1/7): OhGodMyLife
DizzyIzzyB13 (3/7): Ether, Incognito, charter
Ether (0/7):
Green Crayons (0/7):
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (0/7):
OhGodMyLife (0/7):
Patrick (1/7): Xdaamno
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (3/7): Yosarian2, Green Crayons, Patrick
Yosarian2 (0/7):

Not voting (3/12):

skitzer, DizzyIzzyB13, camn

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[Xdaamno]

I never actually asked Patrick to change his playstyle, anyway. I simply stated that I did not suggest he change his playstyle.

I never said that you started out with the intent to change his play, nor did I mean to suggest at any point you attempted to ask him to change his style of play. What struck me is that you call out his play as scummy/suspicious, he explains its his normal play and that he's not going to change, you decide to embrace his normal play as an acceptable scum tell (by suggesting "I'm just observing - don't change!"). You could have said anything when Patrick suggested this was his normal play (e.g. "Well, I'll keep that in mind," "Well, it seems scummy to me - you should keep that in mind," "Well, I find that to be bogus because X, Y and Z."). But instead, you embraced it - so that by the time you realized that his normal, everyday play would be considered scummy and suspicious to you, you welcomed it ("...wasn't asking you to change" in 91) and supported its continuance ("...why would I want [Patrick] to change [his behavior]?" in 101). Instead of addressing and even acknowledging the fact that his

normal play

was considered "suspicious" and "scummy" to you, you were happy to have him continue on his way in order to pin him later on it.

Absolute bullshit, but not really your fault; I meant to imply that my second 'town read' was a (opposite of 'buffer') to my original tell. I think that if you read through my posts, that should be very apparent.

Also, your argument says that I implicitly but intentionally implied that I wanted patrick to be scum under any circumstances. Why would I, as scum, want to say that?

If you can say that Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style, then in any instance you can say that Patrick is scum (because of his play style) and therefore must be lynched (regardless of his alignment). But, I mean: seriously? Are you really asking me this after I just had this conversation with camn?

Have you been paying attention to the thread at all

, scumbag?

Obviously, "Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style" is a stupid argument. You should have checked this was not what I was actually saying, but you did not, and know your whole point has collapsed upon itself.

Not that you actually responded to my point, anyway. I was asking why would scum admit to wanting to have someone lynched regardless of their alignment, which you seemed to miss.

Ignoring the fact you seem to think gauging reactions is equivilent to throwing shit at a wall...

I find your "gauging reactions" to be "throwing shit at a wall." I don't find all attempts to gauge reactions to be throwing shit. Just yours (for the time being).

Unfounded, and illogical anyway. You have an annoying habit of cutting out the quotes I am responding to. It was pretty clear that you simply stated I seemed to be throwing shit against a wall because of my post: "I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was."

Your first point has no basis. What reason (disclaimer: in and of itself, ignore this if you're confused) do you have to believe I'm trying to make stuff up when attacking Patrick?

1. Because your point is weak.
2. Because you give little support for your point.
3. Because you're attempting to "gauge Patrick's reaction," and then promptly drop the line of questioning. Which is bullshit. That's like me asking "HEY CAMN! Are you scum?" With a reply of "No! Of course not!" and me going "Oh. Okay. ... Just checking! Thx!"

1 and 2 are circular logic but more importantly, imo, they're the same thing. More bullshit underhanded, dishonest, harmful, invalid tactics on display...

3 is just plain fucking stupid. You're saying that if someone investigates someone else, and finds them to be town (not 'ask them if they are town', and 'they say that they are town', as you bizzarely try and twist the situation to be) then the investigation itself was a bad idea. Seriously, what the fuck?

Your second point assumes I know what the results of my investigations would be before I actually performed them.

No it isn't you big fat liar. You give no reasonable explanation why you pulled a 180 after Patrick's response. No follow up question. No explanation. Just: Oh, You're so totally town after I just accused you of being suspicious and scummy! It looks like Patrick could have said "Durr Durr I enjoy eating peanut butter..." and you would have gone "Town!" Your "Town!" response is so contrived, it doesn't matter what Patrick's response could have been - you would have said the exact same thing.

Yes, I did give an explanation for why I backed off: I got a town read on his reply. You then move on to say that while I did give an explanation, I didn't give any reasons for that explanation, which is valid (the first valid thing you've said in this thread ever, probably). I will identify the reasons in my next post.

Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure.

Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?

When you directly tell someone you are suspiscious, I feel they wise up a little more and start acting consciously. This may just be a personal preference.

[Xdaamno]

By the way, if your next post is as underhand and illogical as the rest, I'm just going to discontinue arguing. It's stressful for me to reply to, and this argument dosen't seem to be getting anywhere.

Pre-emptive: Thinking I am 'jumping ship' is circular logic; if I am lying and I am scum then I might want to jump ship, but if I am truthful in my arguments and I am town, I would have no motivation to do so. If I was town and felt I was losing the argument, jumping ship would not be a scum tell because I would be town.

This post is scummy. You seem to be thinking up points of attack, rather than noticing something that actually piques your interest. Most people wouldn't assume a "semi-often" mild behaviour in a game you played awile ago with someone actually meant anything (plus, I personally don't store meta information in this way, instead I just remember what that person was like, as if we knew each other in real life.)

Not sure why you put in "a while ago", this game was invitational 10, pretty recent. OGML was replaced quite early, but during his stay in the game alot of his suspicions were quite vague with a fair amount of vibes or gut type stuff. Sure, I guess it's possible he's had a drastic change of philosophy since then and now hates vibes, but it seems unlikely, and I don't see why you felt the need to cut across this at all. Why wouldn't it mean anything? What are you arguing?

Phrases like "for the record", "didn't seem the most natural to me" and "seems marginally off" also fit with this hypothesis; he's not being honest in his attacks.

This is just the way I post. It's not gonna change.

Yeah, wasn't asking you to change. I was just making an observation.

Fairly town reaction, I think...

As I said above, I'll now try and explain why I thought this post was town. The "this is just the way I post" defense is something I think I see quite a lot. It completely misses the point, but I can just put myself in the shoes of a town player being confused at why they are being attacked. I feel a scum player would not react in this way, because defensiveness would typically be a more dominant emotion than confusion is such a situation, IMO.

This is an explanation of my vibes. Vibes are as such because they are usually complicated and are part of human instinct - if you didn't think I thought all that at the time you're right, but rather I instinctively did that logic in my head and categorized it as 'vibes', like people do all the time.

[Xdaamno]

Text walls. I don't agree with every point GC makes against you: the thing about why you needed to vote rather than just using words to pressure me seems a stretch, since votes are fairly widely accepted as a means of applying pressure. I'm not sure I believe that's what you were trying to do though; your posts after that seem consistent with someone who sensed trouble and backed off, and despite asking a couple of times you've refused to explain what you found scummy about my questioning of OGML. After previewing:

Pre-emptive: Thinking I am 'jumping ship' is circular logic; if I am lying and I am scum then I might want to jump ship, but if I am truthful in my arguments and I am town, I would have no motivation to do so. If I was town and felt I was losing the argument, jumping ship would not be a scum tell because I would be town.

See, this is exactly what I think you might have been doing. I don't understand this defence at all, and it sounds circular itself. Why would we start by assuming your alignment then work backwards? I think your actions might indicate that you're scum who made a bad attack on me and kinda played both sides (saying town reaction but leaving a vote on in case there's some support), and I think that because it currently makes more sense to me than the version you've given. Please clarify this defence.

I'm basically trying to outline the possible scenarios. I'm not proposing the you assume my alignment and then go from there, I'm proposing you assume all possible alignments and situations and see which ones makes the most sense.

The argument would be circular logic because both the "Xdaamno is scum and is jumping ship" and the "Xdaamno is town and is jumping ship/not jumping ship" seem reasonable, and therefore to say jumping ship makes me scum is invalid because you have to actually assume I'm scum in the first place for that to actually make sense.

Sorry, I know I'm explaining this badly. I hope that's helped. If anyone sees things like that in my posts, I'd also appreciate it if you asked me to clarify rather than brushing it off.

As I said above, I'll now try and explain why I thought this post was town. The "this is just the way I post" defense is something I think I see quite a lot. It completely misses the point, but I can just put myself in the shoes of a town player being confused at why they are being attacked. I feel a scum player would not react in this way, because defensiveness would typically be a more dominant emotion than confusion is such a situation, IMO.

Can you explain how I missed the point? You say my phrases might indicate a scum alignment, I tell you it indicates nothing, what did I miss? I know that aren't trying to get me to change the way I post. Also, what's your take on GC?

[Xdaamno]

I haven't read through the text walls yet but I have two questions which have been left outstanding by none other than the text wallers!:

Actually, you know, I would be fine if you just read a few of our back-and-forth points before you took sides, because I honestly believe I have defeated each and every argument he has presented.

@Xdaamno's 93:

Does it bother you that I too called out DizzyIzzy for not scum hunting by page 4? What's the difference between my calling her out for this and charter's?

Yeah, if you said the same thing it would be equally illogical - there is, of course, no reason to exempt you. I can't remember seeing that post, though. Either I missed it, or I saw it and saw you weren't being aggresive enough for me to use my time up arguing against you.

[Xdaamno]

Sorry for coming off aggresively, btw. I know I have a problem with that. There's a few things I'd like to respond to now, but I want to get to bed and I know I'll get carried away - will post tommorow.

[Xdaamno]

I'm interested in the fact that while camn claimed to have a predisposition to see anything coming from charter as scummy no matter what, now that he's actually doing something scummy she claims not to see anything wrong with it.

I'm not really interested in the debate going on between Green Crayons and Xdaamno. They both seem town, and this kind of town-town debate threatens to totally muffle anything else for the rest of the day, leaving us with a lot of nothing to work with, and providing a big fat shield for the real scum to hide behind.

Its not that weird. You could say I admitted that I have a terrible read on charter, and I can't be trusted.

However, I agree re: GC and X. I would love for it to blow over.. but they are both so verbose I hardly know where to insert a comment.

Scooped ya' both, though I disagree with the way you're seeing the day is a limited amount of time, OGML ("...for the rest of the day"). We can always extend it.

[Xdaamno]

I really don't know what I can see to these attacks (except the following one.) Phrases like "...making up reasons..." from Patrick just make it seem like he dosen't understand what I'm saying.

You're blatantly ignoring what I have said. I showed why the vote could have some kind of purpose, and said I wanted you to either show me the benifet of removing it, or show why it cannot possibly have any value. You have failed to do either. Yes, the vote is probably useless. However, that small chance of being useful (by some strange mechanic) in and of itself makes the vote useful. Read this paragraph until you understand what I am saying.

The point is, we have enough information at this point so you should be able to have some kind of better-then-random vote on someone. Do you think your vote on Patrick is more likely to be on scum then a random vote would be? Because it really didn't sound like it based on your earlier posts.

I haven't looked, but probably. I got caught up in this silly argument, but I will try and get back to scumhunting now.

(The point I was making was not that my vote was optimal, but that it wasn't harmful for me to be voting Patrick instead of voting no-one.)

[Xdaamno]

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

You're blatantly ignoring what I have said. I showed why the vote could have some kind of purpose, and said I wanted you to either show me the benifet of removing it, or show why it cannot possibly have any value. You have failed to do either. Yes, the vote is probably useless. However, that small chance of being useful (by some strange mechanic) in and of itself makes the vote useful.

Both the above gave me that impression - it should be clear that a vote on someone where you've said that you don't really suspect them and that you're leaving it there for pressure doesn't cause any pressure at all, hence my comment of you making up reasons. In this case I could see it as just a pride thing where you're town.

What don't you think I understand? You said this before about my town looking defence as well, then didn't come back when I asked.

Well, you clearly don't understand my logic for leaving the vote where it is. Simply put:

There is no advantage to me removing my vote, but there is only

probably

no advantage to me leaving it where it is.

I don't particularly care, but I object to people saying leaving my vote where it is is illogical and therefore scummy.

[Xdaamno]

@Xdaamno:

Have you read any portion of the thread prior to when you entered this argument with GC? Any thoughts on that stuff?

Yes, of course. If I notice anything interesting, you'll be the first to know.

[Xdaamno]

@Xdaamno:

Have you read any portion of the thread prior to when you entered this argument with GC? Any thoughts on that stuff?

Yes, of course. If I notice anything interesting, you'll be the first to know.

Errr. Okay. And the answer to the GC question is?

What GC question? Yes, I've read the game before my 'talk' with GC. No, I haven't noticed anything interesting.

[Xdaamno]

Did we ever get a response to this:

Also, what's your take on GC?

Oh, I didn't see that.

He's town.

[Xdaamno]

If you think he's town and if you're town, why would you want people to choose sides on your back-and-forths?:

Actually, you know, I would be fine if you just read a few of our back-and-forth points before you took sides, because I honestly believe I have defeated each and every argument he has presented.

So it could end quicker.

[Xdaamno]

I think claiming miller day one

in your very first post

is the right move to make as miller. If you don't, you're better off just being pro town and hoping you don't get investigated.

That's dumb, though. It dosn't make any difference if you claim "in your first post" or if you claim a little later in the day at all, so long as you claim before the first night.

I was going to wait until the game stalled, or I had a chance to get a good reaction, or something, but screw it; I can never resists a good streight line like that. Still, dosn't matter; there is absolutly no difference between claiming miller "in the first post" or doing it some other time before the end of the day. And "hoping I don't get investigated" would be a stupid move for me.

Yeah, I agree with GC. I don't think Yos truly believes there is "absolutely no difference" between claiming now and claiming earlier, or even claiming later today. Your insistence that this would be a stupid scum move also seems a little off, because of the WIFOM.

[Xdaamno]

Your insistence that this would be a stupid scum move also seems a little off, because of the WIFOM.

Question: If you were to evaluate Yos' action in a vaccum void of all WIFOM, would you find that action to be innately scummy, innately miller-town or neither?

That particular action would be nulled, because I was pointing out the WIFOM. The point I made immediately before that would not be. Plus, there's always a possibility he was running some kind of gambit, so I was trying to probe a little further.

[Xdaamno]

Yeah, I agree with GC. I don't think Yos truly believes there is "absolutely no difference" between claiming now and claiming earlier, or even claiming later today. Your insistence that this would be a stupid scum move also seems a little off, because of the WIFOM.

Do you disagree with me that the odds of me being lynched now are WAY higher then they would have been if I hadn't claimed miller?

WIFOM it back and fourth as much as you want, it would be an idiotic move.

Plus, Yosarian thinking "I have played 100s of games, yawn.... I wonder if I can pull this off? If I can, then I win, and = legend."

And...no. I take mafia way too seriously for that. Every game I play, I play to win.

Maybe WIFOM isn't a great way of describing the situation. I just found it odd that you said it would be silly for scum to claim miller, while at the same time claiming the act of claiming miller is a town tell. It's not some kind of logical fallacy or contradiction, it was just odd. That wasn't my main point in any case.

[Xdaamno]

Having said that, I would

still

like Izzy's and Xdaamno's top threes, and I am

still

eagerly awaiting Korts's catchup post.

I'm sorry, I didn't see the request.

Right now, my top three are Yos, Ether and Charter, I guess. Yos and Ether are clearly ahead of anyone else in the suspect pool at the moment, though. Charter gives me bad vibes, but nothing conclusive. With Yos, there's the miller claim, both the fact of it and the circumstance of it, against him, since it really, really bugs me. His response to being pressured makes me lesslikely to vote for him, though since he's making sense to me. With Ether, there's the accusations of opportunism plus the whole demanding top three from people which I hate when there's clear discuussion going on and in my mind, it smacks of looking for consensus targets that scum can bandwagon.

'Top Three's are misleading, IMO. If you want to know what I think, look at my posts.

[Xdaamno]

Don't worry. To me, everyone is scum until the mod tells me otherwise.

But his play is enough for now.

This seems either unthoughtful or artificial to me; obviously, you're exaggerating. Unless you're trying to get someone lynched, exaggeration has no place in mafia.

[Xdaamno]

How are top three lists misleading? They explicitly allow other players to see which three people you currently consider most suspicious. That's the opposite of misleading. Misleading would be "look at my posts and hope you come up with the correct opinion of who I suspect most because that sort of information may or may not be ambiguous."

They're misleading because they never represent your feelings accurately. The magnitude of the gaps between each player is not presented with the information and, more importantly, neither is the information. You can mix both these things in, but readers will naturally try and condense this information and you'll end up back where you started. A week from now, people are certainly going to remember nothing more than "x, y, z".

For these reasons, they're unnessecary. Something like "I don't like how this person did x, I find them scummy" is much more useful.

(pre-emptive deja vu, ftr)

[Xdaamno]

How are top three lists misleading? They explicitly allow other players to see which three people you currently consider most suspicious. That's the opposite of misleading. Misleading would be "look at my posts and hope you come up with the correct opinion of who I suspect most because that sort of information may or may not be ambiguous."

They're misleading because they never represent your feelings accurately. The magnitude of the gaps between each player is not presented with the information and, more importantly, neither is the

reasoning behind this

information. You can mix both these things in, but readers will naturally try and condense this information and you'll end up back where you started. A week from now, people are certainly going to remember nothing more than "x, y, z".

For these reasons, they're unnessecary. Something like "I don't like how this person did x, I find them scummy" is much more useful.

(pre-emptive deja vu, ftr)

fixed

[Xdaamno]

A list isn't accurate because it condenses information?

No, no, that makes the information less precise. It's like scaling down a picture - it makes it more grainy. We have to condense the information somehow, but this is one of the worse ways imo. For example, a pbpa dosen't condense it very much but it's generally more precise (although more strained, usually.)

[Xdaamno]

X, your top three hate is incredibly weak. People ask questions of and about people they do and do not suspect. People comment heavily and barely comment at all upon people they do and do not suspect. People interact consistantly and inconsistantly with people they do and do not suspect. So, unless if you're FOSing someone or voting them, then these other indicators that point to your top suspicions can be misleading or ambiguous. Even then, you have mentioned in this very game that you don't use your vote solely to show who you suspect - so even votes can be ambiguous!

You've set up a major false dichotomy. It's not 'top-three list' versus 'looking back at posts'. Assumingly you'd be looking back at the posts anyway, and of course there's flaws with that, just like with any method of scumhunting. We're only talking about the optional top-three list to accompany it.

A top three list simply allows other players to know where you stand. It isn't meant to be the end-all of discussion, nor have I ever heard of someone criticizing a top three list because it didn't include all the reasons why that name is on the list. If anything, people will ask, "Oh, why do you suspect Player X so much?" At which point you can give details. So your excuses to not put up a top three are incredibly thin. It looks like you just don't want to be pinned down later in the game. This sort of behavior is suspicious.

I never claimed it was the "end-all of discussion". I just feel that a top-three list can be unnessecarily misleading and can allow others to data mine. Why can't you have the details without the top-three list?

[Xdaamno]

You've set up a major false dichotomy. It's not 'top-three list' versus 'looking back at posts'. Assumingly you'd be looking back at the posts anyway, and of course there's flaws with that, just like with any method of scumhunting. We're only talking about the optional top-three list to accompany it.

Wrong. I haven't set up any dichotomy from the perspective of either the individual player or the rest of the town at large. A top three list should compliment a player's normal posts, which will include all of their scum hunting and suspicion probing. A top three just allows other players to see where they stand at that point in time - basically, how the reactions/consequences of their actions up to that point has affected their views. It's a snapshot of opinion. One should not replace the other. Nor is it expected to do so. The town isn't going to latch onto a top three list and ignore previous posts, and they won't ignore a top three list and latch onto all the previous posts. While they will undoubtedly compare the two and ask questions, all this does is either 1. help understanding and/or 2. help catch scum.

I'm saying we should have top three lists

and

supplemental posts explaining, probing and questioning other players. You're saying that a top three list somehow dilutes these other posts, which is bogus. You are the one setting up the dichotomy (e.g. "we can have either really great investigative posts or we can have really shitty top three lists but we just can't do both!"), here. It's completely nonsensical.

Urgh, no, no

no

. I'm saying that having both is a bad idea, because top-three lists are misleading - you might as well just do

one

.

Read what I said, next time, kthx

[Xdaamno]

I know it's a major part of your arguing style, but can you avoid being intellectually dishonest? I try and not make claims such as "...all this crap you're spewing" until I actually feel I have already proven why I believe that. You put those kind of things at the start of your argument, which is just annoying to read.

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

I read this as: "Here's a bunch of BS to explain why I didn't remove the vote because I made up the reason for the vote after the fact." I'm curious if anyone else sees it this way.

Dosen't need responding to, as I noted above.

I really don't like this; GC has a valid theory, and Xdaamno evades it by attacking the form in which the point is made rather than its contents.

The 'theory' is backed up by absolutely nothing, and so there's nothing I can respond to it with. What did you expect me to say? He's saying 'maybe you're scum and doing x', while I see it as 'I'm town and I'm doing y' - both are fingerquotes "valid", but there's no reason to favour the first one imo.

[Xdaamno]

Top three rocks.

Mine =
Ether
skitzer
Xdaamno

Provide your reasoning.

It's arbitrary. I mean, if you ask someone to name the top three ways they'd like to die, it doesn't mean they're ready to die right now.

This is my reasoning.
I LOVE top threes BECAUSE they are arbitrary.
I am not as bone-chillingly logical as you guys... I like to arbitrarily pick out scum, and start asking them questions, and see what happens.
And, if I may say, I don't do too bad with it.

THIS GAME, however, I am surrounded by awesome, and so far mostly I am taking notes on how to improve my game. Plus I am watching, waiting for the right time to go crazy.

I like that example Izzy, I'll have to remember it.

Looks like camn's going with a "If you can't join them, beat them" strategy.

[Xdaamno]

and I don't get what's holding Ether up either.

Probably because Ether hates being scum and thus tends to be much more quiet/lurker-ish when she's scum.

Vote : Ether

a) I would like to see you get in the game more.. as if I am one to talk
b) I saw you trying to buddy up to me first post
c) I figured out your opening gambit. See my previous
d) if Yos is town, he is on to you, if Yos is scum, he is bussing you.

'd' would be a fair point, but you missed out the possibility of Yos being scum attacking a townie. If you're only counting the scenarios in which Ether is scum, that isn't a reason whatsoever.

[Xdaamno]

Xdaamno: Patrick had a good point; I still have no idea who you find suspicious.

I'll try and contribute more, but that in no way invalidates what I'm saying.

=======================

Page 14 Votecount

camn (0/7):
charter (0/7):
DizzyIzzyB13 (1/7): Incognito,
Ether (2/7): Yosarian2, camn
Green Crayons (0/7):
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (0/7):
OhGodMyLife (0/7):
Patrick (1/7): Xdaamno
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (2/7): Green Crayons, Patrick
Yosarian2 (3/7): OhGodMyLife, charter, Ether

Not voting (3/12):

skitzer, DizzyIzzyB13, Korts,

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[Xdaamno]

DizzyIzzy's last few posts have been solid. I'm beginning to feel much better about her alignment actually lol. I'm beginning to think that this style of play of her's is more a function of her playstyle rather than scummy behavior. I also looked through some of her recently completed games as scum, and I noticed slight differences in them when compared to here. That said

unvote

.

Looking at Korts's posting history shows that he's actively posting elsewhere on the forums and isn't doing anything here. I've noticed a few people mention his name, and I mentioned having issues with him also so I think a

vote: Korts

is certainly warranted.

I did some digging through Xdaamno's recently completed games and noticed some interesting things there too. I'll try and make a post about it hopefully sometime tomorrow or on Monday while commenting on some of the more recent stuff too. It's my mom's birthday today and Easter tomorrow so I might be a bit busy.

You'll find a very different playstyle, ftr.

[Xdaamno]

Xdaamno: I did indeed feel like your playstyle was very different. How did you determine that I would feel that way before I ever even said anything about it?

What do you mean? Why would I not remember what my playstyle was like?

[Xdaamno]

Xdaamno: I did indeed feel like your playstyle was very different. How did you determine that I would feel that way before I ever even said anything about it?

What do you mean? Why would I not remember what my playstyle was like?

EBWOP: Oh, you mean why did you manage to pick up on the playstyle change? I thought it was pretty clear - a long time ago, I used to do large analyses in my first post, and more recently I used to be much more active in games than I am now. I'm sure there were a lot of other visible differences, too/

[Xdaamno]

Well, the only recently completed games I found of yours were town games really. I only found one recently completed game where you were scum but you replaced into that one really late. So if you're town in this particular game and you recognize that I'll find a very different playstyle here when compared to your past games that would mean you've made a conscious effort to change your pro-town play for whatever reason you've decided to. Or you could just be scum here and could be pre-emptively trying to shout that your playstyle changed since you yourself realize that your play as town and as scum is so dissimilar. That's why I asked.

OGML: I'm not ignoring your post -- I'll have comments about it by Monday.

I was scum in the longest Marathon Day game, here:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11027

[Xdaamno]

I try not to factor in Marathon-style play since I think it's dissimilar from the play required in regular games.

I played very, very close to my normal style of play in that game.

[Xdaamno]

I try not to factor in Marathon-style play since I think it's dissimilar from the play required in regular games.

I played very, very close to my normal style of play in that game.

Oh, EBWOP: I mean very, very close to how I want to be playing, as scum.

[Xdaamno]

I'll try and contribute more, but that in no way invalidates what I'm saying.

Except that what you are saying is pretty ambiguous. Like your comments on camn for example, it's pretty unclear to me whether you're calling out something scummy, something a tiny bit scummy, or just chiding her for perceived bad play, or something else. And on the miller claim, which is probably the biggest event in the game, I feel like you're in a position to go either way. I'm not saying every post someone makes has to have some bottom line conclusion, but it seems like they're having to be forced out of you. I've only looked at one forum game of yours so far, and it did seem different as you've claimed; I didn't have much trouble discerning your suspicions there.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making.

[Xdaamno]

I'm trying to get you to say something.

Yeah, I'm lazy. Until something actually gets me interested, I'm just going to point out fallacies

[Xdaamno]

In my experience. . scum don't drop atom bombs on people day 1.

Oh, speaking of which, I'm a miller.

It sounds like TownYos was either waiting for an opportunity, or forgot to say this earlier. Which is it, Yos, if the question is fair?

[Xdaamno]

Actually, I won't read everything if I don't need to.

You do need to.

...

[Xdaamno]

In my experience. . scum don't drop atom bombs on people day 1.

Oh, speaking of which, I'm a miller.

It sounds like TownYos was either waiting for an opportunity, or forgot to say this earlier. Which is it, Yos, if the question is fair?

I was planning to claim miller at some point during day 1, like I said. I didn't really want to do it right at the start of day 1, because I had wanted to let some other conversations start up first, but I didn't want to wait too long either, wanted to make sure the town had enough time to dicuss my claim and act in a rational way about it. (shrug) Seems like the timing worked out pretty well; town had time to talk and think about my claim, got lots of interesting reactions, and it didn't stifle other lines of discussion.

So, Xdaamno, here's the key question for you to answer. If you had to pick someone to lynch, right now, who would it be? The way you haven't really attacked or voted anyone all day is really the main reason I'm suspecting you at this point.

Hmm, looks like you're trying to divert my attention. That's a non-sequitur (although I will answer it.) Your answer seems logical to me, though, so I guess it dosen't mean anything.

Patrick or OGML. Both seem to be trying to appear town, and OGML has been completely serious all game IGMEOYT.

[Xdaamno]

The "look at Xdaamno's posts [up to 253]" method: Canary town. That's it. There's a reason I asked Xdaamno and Izzy. I'm assuming from the fact that Xdaamno's keeping his Patvote here without any update on his view of him that he is not in fact particularly suspicious of anyone else at this point. (Xdaamno has this pattern of getting into theory arguments without commenting on his reads of players. Urgh.)

I know...

[Xdaamno]

Hmm, looks like you're trying to divert my attention. That's a non-sequitur (although I will answer it.)

No; I've been making clear for a while that the fact you haven't attacked anyone at all yet, the fact that while you've been posting and making comments, you haven't done any real scumhunting yet, is part of the reason I find you suspicious.

Yes, I know. It's just that you followed up discussion about yourself with "so here's the key question for you to answer". As I implied in the parenthesis, I don't think that invalidates either of your points at all, I'm just noting something.

[Xdaamno]

(

Part 2 of 3 - Xdaamno's (town) meta

)

I mainly looked through two recently completed games of Xdaamno's to get a general feel of what he plays like as town. I couldn't find any recently completed scum games of his outside of the games he played during Marathon Day and one where he replaced in really late.

Mini 725 - Mafia in Happiville

- I don't think you need to look through too much of this game to notice the differences between his style of play here and there. In 725, he seemed much more assertive, more aggressive, he actively scum-hunted, and seemed to address all or most of the concerns that came up towards him. In our voll-mod game here, I think the difference is quite dramatic: the only thing I really know about Xdaamno is that he thinks GC is town, he thought Patrick was scummy but then he thought he was town-ish, and... that's about it.

Mini 727 - Mafia in Standardville

- This was the other game I looked into where he was town and was D1 lynched as town. Interestingly, I think his play in this particular game matches much more closely with the type of play we've been seeing here. He seemed more "on the sidelines" and distanced from everything and less likely to pay attention to what was going on or address points that were made against him.

Conclusions? Meh, it seems like there's two different Xdaamno's out there: One where he actually seems fairly competent and the other where he seems completely clueless and scummy.

I suppose you mean me?

I try not to post unless I have something useful to be doing, because it's actually an effort for me to not look scummy. I get lynched all the time.

In Mini 725, I certainly received a completely different feeling about your play than you led on in this quote. In fact, in that game you were NK-ed during Night 2. You mentioned a few posts back that you know that your playstyle has changed. Did you make a conscious effort to change your style of play into one that appears more scummy/non-contributive? Why did you seem to exhibit two completely different styles of play in these two games when they appeared to be running at the same time and where, in each case, you were aligned on the side of the town?

Wait, I didn't replace out at all. Are we talking about the same game?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11027

I'm surprised you think I'm "clueless", though. I'm just not feeling the game sometimes.

[Xdaamno]

I came in here to find some scumtells, so that's what I'm doing now.

[Xdaamno]

Before I get into anything else, does anyone here other than Yosarian or Patrick want to venture a guess as to why the two of them continuing to hammer at wanting a reason for me not believing a miller IN THIS SETUP is terribly scummy?

What was the point of this question, OGML? It seemed like you had a reason for it.

[Xdaamno]

Ah, sorry! I misread you.

I couldn't find any recently completed scum games of his outside of the games he played during Marathon Day and one where he replaced in really late.

[Xdaamno]

Green Crayon's arguing the meaning of a couple and Korts said 9 but it was only 7 or whatever seems really trivial to me.

Right, and that's completely not what I pointed out. Your skimming is showing, watch out. There was a seven page gap in what Korts said he needed to catch up on in 14 hours. It isn't a difference between 7 and 9 pages.

Korts came in, said he was "a couple" of pages behind. (Seriously? You want to argue that a couple isn't two? At most three if you want to be liberal/casual about it.)
He originally wants people to draw conclusions for him because he just doesn't want to do the reading.
He gets shit about his laziness from other players.
He then says he wants people to draw conclusions for him because he won't be able to catch up.
He gets shit about him wanting people to draw conclusions/how he won't be able to catch up.
He complains that he is now nine pages behind.

You've let to draw a link between this behaviour and being scummy. I can see one, but I want to know what you're thinking of.

[Xdaamno]

*yet

[Xdaamno]

The obvious implications of my posts are active lurking, argument shifting and misrepresentation to cover his lie/argument shift.

Where in your post does he 'argument shift'? And why is misrepresentation a scum tell - couldn't it be that he lied about how far he was caught up, assuming that he'd be able to catch up later? Town players do that often.

[Xdaamno]

Go back through X's posts. They're just as bad. This is not some sort of new development of X's play this game. Not quite sure why people are happy to say "X is pretty suspicious" but not put their money where their mouth is (just singling these two posts out because they just happened; pretty sure Yos, Patrick and camn have all voiced ample amounts of suspicion about X but I think I'm still the only one voting him). Psst, Incog. Please note he completely side-stepped the meat of your questions about his play.

I haved played games with Xdaamno before, and I find that his posts between those games and this one are pretty similar.

So you disagree with Incog's 405 assessment (two different play styles)?

It's quite inconclusive. Basically, it shows that Xdaamno's playstyle fluctuates independently of the role he has. In Pikmin Mafia, Xdaamno's playstyle was similar if not worse than it is here, and he was town. Basically, Xdaamno is very hard to read because it appears his playstyle changes with his emotions, not his role.

Well, you make it sound like I get upset over mafia. I'd say it varies with interest at the time of each post (which is almost completely random - this playerlist is great, obv)

=======================

Page 19 Votecount

camn (0/7):
charter (0/7):
DizzyIzzyB13 (1/7): Korts
Ether (0/7):
Green Crayons (0/7):
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (3/7): Incognito, Patrick, DizzyIzzyB13
OhGodMyLife (0/7):
Patrick (1/7): Xdaamno
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (1/7): Green Crayons,
Yosarian2 (3/7): OhGodMyLife, charter, Ether

Not voting (3/12):

skitzer, Yosarian2, camn

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[Xdaamno]

Go back through X's posts. They're just as bad. This is not some sort of new development of X's play this game. Not quite sure why people are happy to say "X is pretty suspicious" but not put their money where their mouth is (just singling these two posts out because they just happened; pretty sure Yos, Patrick and camn have all voiced ample amounts of suspicion about X but I think I'm still the only one voting him). Psst, Incog. Please note he completely side-stepped the meat of your questions about his play.

I haved played games with Xdaamno before, and I find that his posts between those games and this one are pretty similar.

So you disagree with Incog's 405 assessment (two different play styles)?

It's quite inconclusive. Basically, it shows that Xdaamno's playstyle fluctuates independently of the role he has. In Pikmin Mafia, Xdaamno's playstyle was similar if not worse than it is here, and he was town. Basically, Xdaamno is very hard to read because it appears his playstyle changes with his emotions, not his role.

Well, you make it sound like I get upset over mafia. I'd say it varies with interest at the time of each post (which is almost completely random - this playerlist is great, obv)

Ignore the parenthesis. I went back and edited the sentence, not realising it no longer made sense.

[Xdaamno]

I find it strange that Xdaamno is here looking for scum-tells but keeps questioning the dude he thinks is town.

You do this a lot: using non-confrontational and backseat language when challenging someone.

I'll look up your meta tommorow, going to bed now.

[Xdaamno]

Hmm. Camn, what was the deal with your vote and unvote, anyway?

I'll look up your meta tommorow, going to bed now.

He's town.

Are you saying this based on your opinion of his meta, or is this just an attempt to make sure I actually do the work?

[Xdaamno]

Yeah, I see some similar play here:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

Null-tell, then.

[Xdaamno]

So you disagree with Incog's 405 assessment (two different play styles)?

It's quite inconclusive. Basically, it shows that Xdaamno's playstyle fluctuates independently of the role he has.

So would you say it's better to judge X's play on a case-by-case basis (that is, solely within the confines of a single game) in order to determine his scum/town leanings, since his meta is a complete mess?

I liked you better as Erg0.

[Xdaamno]

So you're saying you lurked/fell behind because you mismanaged your time (scumchat over ongoing game) and/or over-extended yourself (not enough time in the day to oblige your commitments)?

Essentially, yes. And the semantic argument about the meaning of "couple" is pointless--it doesn't just mean two, it also means (as far as I am aware) "a few". Whether or not nine pages is few is a completely different argument, but I never claimed to be only two pages behind, and that is an idiotic assumption to make.

I came in here to find some scumtells, so that's what I'm doing now.

I am leaning towards agreeing with skitzer's comment regarding this post. This does seem like a conscious attempt at emphasising that you are scumhunting, as in a pre-emptive defense of sorts. Especially since the next post of yours is a snipe at OGML's fairly reasonable question instead of anything resembling an analysis of scum vs. town motives.

P.S. If you're so far behind in your reading, why do you feel so comfortable placing your vote on DizzyIzzy? Wouldn't you want to catch up first and then decide where to place your vote after gathering more information about the players and the game in general instead of being so reactionary?

I feel comfortable because and her push on my wagon, by analysis of her reasoning, seems more policy-based than anything--why didn't she vote me while I wasn't posting? A week from deadline, and more than a week since I started trying to catch up, and she wants me to go back to reading and consecutively having to avoid most interactions--which are the best way for me to gauge players' motives. And I am reactionary by nature, it is a good way for me to scumhunt--unless I misunderstand the meaning of the word?

charter's feud with OGML seems overly forced when looking at charter's comments, especially with his pseudo-defense of me in 435 where he goes on a tangent only to mock OGML. It seems more like a conscious attempt at discrediting OGML than earnest frustration.

My list of suspects is now: Izzy, charter, Xdaamno based on the above.

Your use of the world 'snipe' is completely dishonest. Did you actually look at my question? I truly did not know the answer, which I wanted to help me scumhunt.

The fact I forgot to go back and see his answer is irrelevant to the point at hand ¬.¬

[Xdaamno]

Oh, I see, he didn't reply.

Before I get into anything else, does anyone here other than Yosarian or Patrick want to venture a guess as to why the two of them continuing to hammer at wanting a reason for me not believing a miller IN THIS SETUP is terribly scummy?

What was the point of this question, OGML? It seemed like you had a reason for it.

OGML?

[Xdaamno]

Now you're making a pedantic objection. I treat 'asking questions which you can infer alignment from' to be scumhunting. I assume you either think this is not scumhunting, or that you could infer nothing about his alignment from my question?

[Xdaamno]

The main purpose of that question was not clear. I'm going to wait for the answer to the question before going any further.

[Xdaamno]

Oh, I see, he didn't reply.

Before I get into anything else, does anyone here other than Yosarian or Patrick want to venture a guess as to why the two of them continuing to hammer at wanting a reason for me not believing a miller IN THIS SETUP is terribly scummy?

What was the point of this question, OGML? It seemed like you had a reason for it.

OGML?

What was unclear about the question? Seems simple enough to me.

I meant what were you trying to infer from the answers you would be given, or what was your goal in asking the question, if anything.

[Xdaamno]

I wonder how long X is going to continue to ask clarification to abundantly obvious statements in order to look productive/town.

Playing with you is very,

very

irritating, because you constantly lie. Not only have I not asked "clarification", I have only done what you think you are accusing me of

once

.

[Xdaamno]

Playing with you is very, very irritating, because you constantly lie.

Each time you have labeled me as "lying" it was either me voicing my opinion/interpretation of events or me cutting through your BS and calling something for what it was.

Not only have I not asked "clarification", I have only done what you think you are accusing me of once.

Looks like requesting clarification to me:

What was the point of this question, OGML? It seemed like you had a reason for it.

You've let to draw a link between this behaviour and being scummy. I can see one, but I want to know what you're thinking of.

Where in your post does he 'argument shift'?

Asking the reason for his question is not the same as asking clarification about his question. In the context of your sentence, that is a huge difference - not only is it not "obvious" because there is a few different things it could be, but you have also missed the point of my inquiry. I'm investigating OGML's alignment, and the way he presents his answer will make a difference in how I see him. This element is present in 'inquiry' but not in 'clarification'.

[Xdaamno]

skitzer, 461 is nothing like 437.

Izzy, Xd, I've gotten what I could out of my question, pressing me further on it will get you nowhere.

You don't want to tell us what you got out of your question?

[Xdaamno]

Well, you make it sound like I get upset over mafia. I'd say it varies with interest at the time of each post (which is almost completely random - this playerlist is great, obv)

That's what I meant: mood and interest at the time. And I couldn't agree with you more about the playerlist.

So would you say it's better to judge X's play on a case-by-case basis (that is, solely within the confines of a single game) in order to determine his scum/town leanings, since his meta is a complete mess?

Yes, that pretty much sums it up.

Just popping in to reiterate that the only person other that Yos who I would even consider lynching is charter.

This is similar to the Xdaamno's 437, which seems pointless, and as you say yourself, a reiteration.

First of all, I disagree - OGML's post was useful in reminding me where he stood.

Secondly, though, would you have thought my short post would have been less suspiscious if it was merged with my other posts sandwiching it? I used it as a divider, and I think that has inflammated this suspiscion. I do see your point, though, and it was a bad thing to post. I knew my last post looked like I was still arguing about theory, so I quickly posted that and went back to check the thread.

[Xdaamno]

I'm suddenly seeing Xdaamno burying himself in semantics arguments.

Does it seem that way to you? The difference in semantics is the one factor which validates or invalidates Erg0's attack.

[Xdaamno]

skitzer, 461 is nothing like 437.

Izzy, Xd, I've gotten what I could out of my question, pressing me further on it will get you nowhere.

You don't want to tell us what you got out of your question?

At least one person already understood the basis for and what I got out of the question. Thats enough for me.

So you think there is a disadvantage to telling the rest of us?

[Xdaamno]

skitzer, 461 is nothing like 437.

Izzy, Xd, I've gotten what I could out of my question, pressing me further on it will get you nowhere.

You don't want to tell us what you got out of your question?

At least one person already understood the basis for and what I got out of the question. Thats enough for me.

So you think there is a disadvantage to telling the rest of us?

Apparently so. Gonna stop pressing this yet?

OH NOW I SEE YES

[Xdaamno]

Secondly, though, would you have thought my short post would have been less suspiscious if it was merged with my other posts sandwiching it?

It wouldn't have been much less suspicious, since the scumtell is the fact that you bring attention to the fact that you intend to scumhunt; but either way the fact that there was nothing afterwards that would've been the bottom slice of bread is an indicator that it was just fluffposting for town cred.

OK, I agree.

[Xdaamno]

Secondly, though, would you have thought my short post would have been less suspiscious if it was merged with my other posts sandwiching it?

It wouldn't have been much less suspicious, since the scumtell is the fact that you bring attention to the fact that you intend to scumhunt; but either way the fact that there was nothing afterwards that would've been the bottom slice of bread is an indicator that it was just fluffposting for town cred.

OK, I agree.

unvote, vote: Xdaamno

What?

[Xdaamno]

Pre-emptive: Yes, it would only have been a little less suspiscious if the posts a merge, but it would be a little bit nontheless. I recognize it would look like I was fluffposting either way.

[Xdaamno]

*were

=======================

Page 21 Votecount

camn (0/7):
charter (0/7):
DizzyIzzyB13 (0/7):
Ether (0/7):
Green Crayons (0/7):
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (3/7): Incognito, Patrick, DizzyIzzyB13
OhGodMyLife (0/7):
Patrick (1/7): Xdaamno
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (2/7): Green Crayons, Korts
Yosarian2 (3/7): OhGodMyLife, charter, Ether

Not voting (3/12):

skitzer, Yosarian2, camn

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[Xdaamno]

Yes, it is a scumtell that I forgot to follow up, although a minor one as I would argue. Also, as I said in my pre-empt, I also recognize that it was an indicator I was fluffposting, but I was not. I was agreeing to the fact it wouldn't have been much less suspiscious, not to the other points in particular, although they were fine with me and have already been established.

(yes, I make the mistake of always being 'technically' correct rather than being 'obviously' correct, and not clarifying my posts at the time of writing. I will try to stop doing that.)

(obvious town read on korts)

[Xdaamno]

Why do I get the feeling nobody actually reads what I write?

[Xdaamno]

Sorry guys! I know I suck at looking town. I'll enjoy watching this game afterwards, but I regret actually joining it.

GC, I know I can come across as an asshole sometimes, but you've taken it way to far and it's hurting my enjoyment of the game. I hope I don't have to play with you again.

Vote: Xdaamno

Before somebody hammers, I want to do a long analysis. I'll start making notes.

[Xdaamno]

Why do I get the feeling nobody actually reads what I write?

(this sums up my general feelings - I'm pretty sure my style of argument is just not compatable with looking town in mafia anymore)

[Xdaamno]

(to clarify with GC: half of the 'asshole' part is the fact that he consistently misrepresents me - in every single one of my posts that he has paraphrased or interpreted he has missed the point entirely)

[Xdaamno]

GC, I know I can come across as an asshole sometimes, but you've taken it way to far and it's hurting my enjoyment of the game. I hope I don't have to play with you again.

... Are you serious? I'm criticizing your play, not you as coming across as an asshole. I'm saying your play has been scummy, not that you're a jerk. You're making my criticism of your play into a personal insult against your person? Really?

Yes. Unnessecarily angry quotes:

His initial post was crap

(Did you just throw up in your mouth a little bit? Because I did.)

Dishonest quotes:

Patrick is making stuff up that doesn't actually interest him (I think the assumption is because scum don't get interested in things?) because

1. Patrick operates differently than X and 2. Patrick's natural phraseology is suspicious.

(Did you just throw up in your mouth a little bit? Because I did.)

At no point in time did I see X defend the actual content of his original post

whose alleged "intent" was to gauge the reaction of Patrick (e.g. it was a crap reason to go after Patrick and, knowing this, he didn't talk an iota about it).

According to X, "Top Three's are misleading."

And, in fact - they're completely useless!

Because, "If you want to know what [X thinks], look at [X's] posts."

All you need to do is just look at his posts and apparently his suspicions are super easy to discern!

My issue with this is threefold:

15 out of X's 25 posts prior to this claim deal with him either directly discussing or explaining his interactions with GC (who he finds to be town) or Patrick (who has given him town/null vibes).

The remainder are inconsequential.

X side steps and gives a complete crap response that

amounts to "If you are right then I am wrong. I know what you are saying is right. However, I am not wrong!"

Logic defying bull.

His argument boiled down is that he finds Top Threes to be aesthetically displeasing.

After what started as criticism of a Top Three as being misleading, X finally drives home his

real point: Top Threes are "misleading" because they have the potential to split up a big huge post of named suspicious players and the cause behind that suspicion into two smaller posts, one containing named suspicious players and the other containing reasoning behind that suspicion. Yes, that's right. X tried to argue that Top Threes are misleading because the composition of a hypothetical post is not in the format he likes to read.

Please find me a post that indicates who X suspects. You won't. Unless if you count the joke post 388. I don't.

He's 1) said that he thinks Patrick is town and 2) hasn't said a damned thing about why he thinks OGML is suspicious.

X got a stiff dose of reality when his (bad) Patrick attack failed miserably.

The spotlight shined severely, and he felt the burn. Since then he's been keeping his head low because he - as any other scum - doesn't want needless attention on him.

Why didn't X criticize the specific Top Three lists that were formulated by different players? Because it requires making a practical use of his bad theory argument.

[Xdaamno]

Oh, wait, let me clarify. You said:

You're making my criticism of your play into a personal insult against your person?

That's just the repeated use of the word 'crap' and 'throw up in your mouth'. The rest is not a, quote "personal insult against my person", but instead amounts to you hurting the town by being dishonest because you're too much of an asshole to engage in a fair argument.

[Xdaamno]

Pre-emptive: The reason I think it is OK for me to insult you is because I feel the insult is deserved, as opposed to you being an asshole while attempting to show why I am scum.

[Xdaamno]

I disagree. I looked up previous discussion on self-voting (to see general MS thoughts on the matter) and I think this is an obvious emotional ploy, per Seol: "...the appeal to emotion self-vote which should always, always lead to lynch (ie, the correct approach to an appeal to emotion is to deny)." The fact that he's acting super wounded that I'm calling him scum (which, as a defense, makes absolutely no sense) coupled with the self-vote, he looks like a scumbag trying out a pity plea.

Well then I'd feel really bad for poor alphachick, poor Iceforge, poor lordofthelefthand, poor Xtoxm (sorry Xtoxm x_x), poor krazyness, and even poor Incognito (yeah, I was still learning the ropes to this game, heh) if we ever ended up in a game with Seol. We'd have all been toast, and we'd have all been dead, decaying townies.

An incredibly recent game comes to mind about a scumbag showing really awesome frustration that looked really town and convinced the town to not lynch the guy because, in part, he was town-looking with that frustration. Being frustrated isn't a town tell by any stretch of the imagination.

If you're talking about the game I telepathically,

psychically

predict you're talking about, I'd love to make comment here but...

@Xdaamno:

no matter what happens, I think you owe it to everyone to produce that long analysis you mentioned above. A number of us have been asking for

something

of that sort for quite some time now.

Yep, I promise.

[Xdaamno]

X: So, using the word "crap" and expressing distaste for another player's logic is all it takes to be labeled an asshole these days? Please. Your incredibly melodramatic turn is looking like an incredible farce.

Haha... this is, what, the 5th time I've asked you to stop being dishonest?

[Xdaamno]

OK, fair enough, I went over the top. However, insulting someone when they've made a logic-based argument and getting angry at someone's dishonest play after they have done it repeatedly are different things.

My problem was that not only did you miss out the more significant insult, you tried to pass off 'expressing distaste for dishonest arguments' as "expressing distate for another player's logic".

[Xdaamno]

Limited access until around Wednesday 22nd, but should still be able to post occasionally.

(No change, then! )

[Xdaamno]

Limited access until around Wednesday 22nd, but should still be able to post occasionally.

(No change, then! )

I might be able to finish and post this analysis by then. Otherwise, that's my deadline.

[Xdaamno]

unvote

I had actually typed up why I still supported a Kortslynch over a Charterlynch; then I saw the claim.

I feel like I have genuinely not been scummy. I've been doing really good lately. This is my first time dying before endgame in a long time.

Oh, and no one asked, but I'm sure you all are curious as to what awesome role I am. I am a

mason

. Alignment of partner not mod confirmed. Duhn Duhn duhhhh....

Now

I'm feeling uneasy.

Yeah, that's an interesting contrast. Why would he assume he would get lynched if he had another card to play?

[Xdaamno]

camn:

camn:

Why would scum be more likely to soft-claim than town?

Because it is in scum's interest to be perceived as a PR, and thus a poor lynch, but not be a CLAIMED PR, and thus have to deal with why-aren't-you-dead WIFOM.

On the other hand, it is in a townies interest to HIDE their PR status, because then they live longer.

Not that I am saying C was softclaiming. Just that softclaiming and rolefishing often go together.
I wasn't rolefishing GC, and I don't believe GC was softclaiming. I don't believe that GC has role-based on Yos, and I think his case is almost entirely meta-based.

This post gives me strong town vibes. It is generally not in the scum's best interests to highlight tactics that they might want to use later (or, at least, I'd expect an aversion to doing so). The assertive statements at the end are also very town-like.

I do not blame her for jumping on my wagon, because I did look scummy and her vote was not indicative that she wanted to lynch me. The word "compelling" strikes me as honest.

Hmm. Camn, what was the deal with your vote and unvote, anyway?

Which one?

I wanted you to get more in the game.
Plus I have been kind of gambit-happy lately, and I wanted to see what Yosarian would do.
Keep it up on the first, meh on the second.

Jokey mood strikes me as town.

Dizzy:

(obvious town read on korts)

Well, that's about all the evidence we need for a Korts lynch. :p

Scum vibes here. This is her only post relating to my wagon that was forming. Strikes me as backseat and cocky.

Ether: the reason for my Izzyvote is quite simple: she stated an intention to specifically lynch me based simply on the fact that with a week left of Day 1 I decided not to toil away with an increasing amount of reading material and try to interact. I can't believe that she doesn't have any better suspects. It seems more like an alibi-vote than anything.

And thanks for the advice, I will try to make time for some reading.

Please. You deliberately avoided the game and lurked. That's scummy behaviour. You've refused to catch up and contribute. Also scummy behaviour. You've attempted to find other people's opinions to latch on to to avoid the accountability of having your own. That's scummy. When you get enough votes that you h

ave a bandwagon, suddenly you're all over this game like crabs on Paris Hilton.

That's scummy.

Nothing of your behaviour in this game has been townish. You're a good candidate for a lynch, and the best one at the moment. I'm happy with my Korts vote.

What do the rest of you think? Is my Kortscase flawed in any way? I'm willing to yield to a convincing argument, but I'm unable to find one myself.

The joke here seems out-of-place and un-townlike. This is because a town player who is actually making a serious attack would be expected to have a serious attitude.

Ether:

Sometimes, I don't like myself very much. I woke up much less enthusiastic about my Yosvote than I was when I placed it, finding myself under suspicion that I...didn't really disagree with, and put off addressing it. (On Thursday, I

was

doing a programming cram, but that's Thursday.) This is a recovery mode post; I won't really feel comfortable until I'm interacting again.

Weak town vibes from the self-deprecation.

Yosarian:

I think I always have trouble reading Yosarian, and it's even harder given that I'm the subject of many of his posts.

In my experience. . scum don't drop atom bombs on people day 1.

Oh, speaking of which, I'm a miller.

It sounds like TownYos was either waiting for an opportunity, or forgot to say this earlier. Which is it, Yos, if the question is fair?

I was planning to claim miller at some point during day 1, like I said. I didn't really want to do it right at the start of day 1, because I had wanted to let some other conversations start up first, but I didn't want to wait too long either, wanted to make sure the town had enough time to dicuss my claim and act in a rational way about it. (shrug) Seems like the timing worked out pretty well; town had time to talk and think about my claim, got lots of interesting reactions, and it didn't stifle other lines of discussion.

So, Xdaamno, here's the key question for you to answer. If you had to pick someone to lynch, right now, who would it be? The way you haven't really attacked or voted anyone all day is really the main reason I'm suspecting you at this point.

This last paragraph in and of itself just struck me as town. I suppose you were trying to get me to notice it and not forget it? Going down that thought process is something scum do not need to do, and so I think you are town.

Incognito:

Aren't you usually a breadcrumbing kind of guy?

Ether's

sooooo

cool when she's town.

Your relaxed attitude lately makes me think that if you are scum, there's probably no town players under suspiscion right now.



Kind of incomplete, so I'll try and do a little more when I can before the day ends.

I support the deadline extension, mod.

For now, my vote will sit here:

Unvote, Vote: Dizzy

[Xdaamno]

I'd like to hear Yos' opinion on OGML's proposal, ftr.

[Xdaamno]

Yep, I mistyped. I meant mafia.

What's your point? I was in a hurry, and that jumped out at me. Similarily, the same logic applies even more strongly to why I missed out the entire post record of other players.

[Xdaamno]

Masons can be scum.

[Xdaamno]

EBWOP: That was in response to GC's post charter quoted, not to the roleclaim itself.

[Xdaamno]

I'd like to hear Yos' opinion on OGML's proposal, ftr.

Yos, you missed this a page back.

[Xdaamno]

Yes, I agree with Yos. I can't see a better lynch than an Izzy lynch right now.

/non-committal

[Xdaamno]

Should be able to post more often from now on.

I don't particularly like the prospects of either an Izzy lynch or an X lynch, but a no lynch would be disastrous so I'll put my vote on whichever one is closer to being lynched in a few hours.

QFT (though I'm pretty certain which wagon I'll be on at the deadline )

[Xdaamno]

Goddammit.

[Xdaamno]

Goddammit.

That sounds so fake.

Right, because that's

not

what

you

were thinking.

...

FOS: Korts

[Xdaamno]

pfffft

[Xdaamno]

Vote Yosarian2

Claimed scum yesterday. A gunsmith and a tracker? Looks like he hedged his bets wrong.

Yeah, Yos is looking very, very scummy at this point.

Vote: Yos

[Xdaamno]

Goddammit.

I'm curious which part you're damning to God?

I would like an answer to my question, please.

What I said, thanks.

We lynched a mason, and had two power roles killed. Not that there is a God.

(pfffft)

[Xdaamno]

Hmm, I get vibes for a Yos-Incognito scumteam, trying to delay Yos' lynch. I know Yos recently posted in a mafia discussion thread that stalling for time before being lynched is very useful for scum, which makes it more likely. IGMEOY.

I asked a question probing Yos about this a while ago, which I had to repeat... I forgot about it, so I'll look back and see if I got an answer (not that it'll likely need answering now.)

[Xdaamno]

Cult unlikely. Mafia recruiter - meh, maybe. Odds that recruiting mason is just a role that is very likely to go uncounterclaimed and charter is a mafia power role? Very high. "Try to draw out the cop or doc" is something that a mafia goon does when run up the flagpole. Try to survive for as long as possible is something a mafia PR does. Also, now charter has a lovely excuse for why he might get tracked to whoever dies tonight - he was just trying to be friends with them!

Let's speedlynch him.

I'd like to hear Yos' opinion on OGML's proposal, ftr.

Yos, you missed this a page back.

I'd like to hear Yos' opinion on OGML's proposal, ftr.

Yos, you missed this a page back.

Well, I kind of though I answered it. His proposal that we speedlynch the guy who just claimed an easily confirmable role on day 1? I'm against it, obviously. Or were you talking about something else?

Ah, right, you did.

It was a weak question, and it came out town. Nevermind.

[Xdaamno]

Hmm, I get vibes for a Yos-Incognito scumteam, trying to delay Yos' lynch. I know Yos recently posted in a mafia discussion thread that stalling for time before being lynched is very useful for scum, which makes it more likely. IGMEOY.

Is this solely because I didn't immediately lend my vote to the growing Yosarian2-wagon or is your suspicion of this pairing based on anything else in the game? Please elaborate on this.

Pretty much the former (if you remove the annoying weasal words) - I hadn't considered it before now, of course.

[Xdaamno]

Unless I'm missing something, the answer to your question is obvious: he would have discussed it with you last night?

[Xdaamno]

Yos, apart from the fact that I have been voting more could possibly agree with the theory that I am scum (but is not a scumtell in itself), are there any extra reasons why I am more scummy today than yesterday? I'm saying this to make sure people don't trust you solely as an authority figure.

=======================

Page 31 Votecount

charter (0/5):
Ether (2/5): Incognito, Green Crayons
Green Crayons(0/5):
Incognito (0/5):
Korts (0/5):
Patrick (0/5):
skitzer (0/5):
Xdaamno (1/5): Yosarian2
Yosarian2 (3/5): charter, Xdaamno, Korts

Not voting (3/9):

Ether, Patrick, skitzer,

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch.
=======================

Countdown To Day 2

[Xdaamno]

Eh, that was phrased weirdly. You get my point.

[Xdaamno]

Yos, apart from the fact that I have been voting more could possibly agree with the theory that I am scum (but is not a scumtell in itself), are there any extra reasons why I am more scummy today than yesterday? I'm saying this to make sure people don't trust you solely as an authority figure.

Well, you were pretty scummy yesterday as well, IMHO.

Today, I really think the way you just jumped on my bandwagon based on nothing more you following a confirmed town charter seemed very scummy and oppertunistic. If you are scum, your only priority today would be to secure a mislynch by whatever means necessary; if town mislynches today, town is in deep trouble. Plus, your sudden vote on me seems completly inconsistant with your behavior from yesterday, when you didn't really show any signs of suspecting me at all. You hardly commented on me at all, and when you did, this was the last thing you said about me:

This last paragraph in and of itself just struck me as town. I suppose you were trying to get me to notice it and not forget it? Going down that thought process is something scum do not need to do, and so I think you are town.

So, yesterday you seemed to be ignoring me completly when it looked like I was going to get lynched, trying to get on my good side when it looked like I wasn't and was attacking you; and as soon as it looks like I might be lynchable today, you vote for me with nothing more then an agreement with another player who's confrimed town. It really feels like scum play to me at this point.

I can see what you're saying, but I disagree that my lack of comment was particularly scummy - everyone already knew the reason. What did you expect me to write? "Vote: Yos because of the reason stated above" is superfluous, and "Vote: Yos because of the miller claim" would make it look like I was trying to take credit for the exact same thing the poster before me said, IMO.

[Xdaamno]

I'm not really getting much out of the past few posts probably because they've been about set-up spec.

Well, your claim would be convenient for scum in that it's not actually confirmable, it's not likely to be counterclaimed if you're lying because bodyguards aren't very common, and it's not a role claim the town was likely to lynch on day 1.

This was exactly my line of thinking yesterday when I maintained my vote on Korts so it strongly surprised me when you seemed to feel otherwise. I see Patrick touched on this also. Looking back, I see you were mainly thinking of things from a Cop/Miller perspective, but I just find it weird that if you're telling the truth about your role, a player of your caliber wouldn't have considered that perhaps we may be dealing with a screwy type of set-up that simply has no Cop even with the presence of a Miller. Your insistence on there being one yesterday just strikes me as off.

(nods) Yeah, I was thinking in terms of there being a cop since my role specifically made a point of saying I would look guilty to cop investigations. I suppose I should have realized there might not be one, but honestly, it never occured to me.

Really? I would have thought a miller would do the right thing by assuming there was a cop (especially in a vollkan setup, unlikely to have blank roles imo) - why should it have occured to you?

[Xdaamno]

Yos: I have the same opinion on her as you do to someone you're not paying attention to - I don't get the wagon. I will take a look at what people find suspiscious now.

[Xdaamno]

Anyway, I would also like to see an Ether claim, and am also willing to join that wagon.

Xdaamno: I would like to see that analysis soon; if you don't give one before Ether gets lynched, and she flips scum, you will look quite bad in my eyes.

It's not an 'analysis', and I'm definately not being rushed this time. When I look at this thread, I'm usually at some of Ether's posts. Take of that what you will.

[Xdaamno]

Yo, Korts. Did you ever read that stuff you fell behind on?

No.

Your 705 reads to me like you were aware of the softclaim. When did you catch it? (And yes, I do think you should have been more concerned with OGML than with Charter.)

Ether, I know what you're trying to do here. You're seriously trying to get me to reveal the secret behind the AIM logs that Patrick and I have on your typical play and that's

not

gonna happen.

I'm curious, but I'll live.

Farscape and Big Love (claims here and here, respectively) are the games that caused me to shift my attitude on claimed protective roles. Suspicious ones are good at getting themselves out of the way without my help. I really don't like his sneaking around OGML, though--see above--and am annoyed that he survived at all.

I needed Korts's answer first.

Pfft.

My blitz fell through when it came out that Skitzer was behind the slow start. This put me back on Square 1 without anything to show for it, and I didn't get back into the mood.

Followed shortly thereafter by, "I don't know what causes that reaction, though I'm pretty sure thick familiarity is a negative, if anything." Pretty funny. Thick familiarity is a negative when you're scum.

It's a negative anyway. My activity owned in 707

most of it

despite coming in having played with q21 once and Mizzy twice, and not knowing anyone very well. Patrick replaced in later, but even he lurked. Impatience and frustration fuel me to dominate a low-profile game--in contrast, I'm more likely to be stunted and even replaced when almost everyone's competent.

Lots of linguistic cliches in her last few posts, such as this one. I think that's a very strong scum tell because townies are never complacent. So, yes, an Ether wagon looks very good to me.

[Xdaamno]

Yep. Townies always have something to be worried about.

I just realised that Ether might be going back and editing her posts to make them more compelling, though >.>

[Xdaamno]

I just realised that Ether might be going back and editing her posts to make them more compelling, though >.>

...I'm sorry, what?

She may be concerned about looking scummy, and so is re-reading her posts and making them more presentable. This is different than complacency, and something I can imagine town doing. I think it's unlikely, though, so my vote stays.

[Xdaamno]

If Ether dosn't say something change my mind in the near future, I expect to hammer her. We can take care of her obvious scum budddy Xdaamno tommorow.

Tunnel vision - yes, my play is consistent with scum. That's obvious. But it's also consistent with town. You're interpreting my behaviour as how you'd like to see it, rather than objectively.

[Xdaamno]

If Ether dosn't say something change my mind in the near future, I expect to hammer her. We can take care of her obvious scum budddy Xdaamno tommorow.

Tunnel vision - yes, my play is consistent with scum. That's obvious. But it's also consistent with town. You're interpreting my behaviour as how you'd like to see it, rather than objectively.

I am interpreting your behavior objectivly, Xdaamno. Objectivly, I think your weak scumhunting day 1 was scummy. I think your general contrabutions to this game are not as pro-town as I would expect. I think the whole thing with your vote on Patrick, and how you seemed to go back and fourth on it, were more likely to come from a scum then from a town. I think your sudden vote on me today, despite your thinking I was pro-town yesterday, was scummy, and the way you've just kept your vote on me without explaining it, or defending it, or discussing why you think I'm scum is also more likely to come from a scum then a town. Plus some aspects of your behavior makes me wonder about a possible link with Ether, my other main suspect.

Your defense here looks like you're saying "Oh, but a townie could play the way I'm playing just like a scum could". And that's true; it is possible a pro-town person could play the way you are playing, that is always a possibility. However, it would not be good play for a pro-town person to play that way, and I don't think it's all that likely, either.

In any case, if Ether keep lurking, I'll probably hammer her soon. Don't think that takes you off the hook, though.

The second paragraph is misunderstanding what I am saying: I'm not saying 'but I could be town'. I was saying that, from my point of view, it you are underestimating the consistency of a town player making my posts.

Your first paragraph I have no problems with. I'm not going to lie and defend myself artificially like many town players would. Those are valid points.

[Xdaamno]

X: So you admit that your play could be considered scummy, but that there are objective qualifiers that make it not scummy? ...Riiiight.

So what actions specifically do you think could be considered scummy?
What objective qualifiers do you think make these actions town?
From an objective point of view, why do you think Yos' interpretation of your actions is wrong?

pfffft

[Xdaamno]

Your first paragraph I have no problems with. I'm not going to lie and defend myself artificially like many town players would. Those are valid points.

I'm surprised you don't have a problem with the first paragraph and think all of the points are valid. Yosarian2 mentioned that one of his issues with you is your vote on him

today

despite the fact that you didn't find him scummy yesterday. How is that point valid when you seemed to vote for him due to the information we learned from our now dead townies, which is new information that you didn't have available to you yesterday?

Because it's scummy to change your opinion that quickly (even though I don't think I remembered my opinion of him yesterday, there's no way I can prove it to you and therefore it's a valid scumtell.)

[Xdaamno]

I'm vanilla, and Erg0 suddenly seems hilarious to me after a few days off this game.

[Xdaamno]

You seemed pretty sold on me being town before -- why did that change just because of my claim?

I think he was quite clear - it is unlikely to have such a "wack" setup with such a good mod.

[Xdaamno]

"whack", sorry

[Xdaamno]

Thank you, Patrick, for bringing some sense into this thread. Much appreciated. Still not sure if you're scum though whereas GC is almost certainly scum.

Mod:

prod Xdaamno, please?

That prod was unnecessary.

[Xdaamno]

EBWOP: Got a little more time:

... because the last few times I posted were only a page ago.

Xdaamno needs to post something with actual substance. He's hanging back, and it doesn't take a genius to work out why.

This is annoying, and made me consider replacing out. Mafia sucks here because of the meta that you have to have no life to play it.

The mutual suspiscion on me in the last few posts is, objectively, from my point of view, scum-driven and has gone unnoticed because of a tired, bloodthirsty town.

*shrug*

[Xdaamno]

Green Crayons looks scummy to me. I have a feeling his pathetic insults at me are not because he is an angry person, but because he is trying to replace any suspiscion I have of him with an emotion.

Incog: In light of all of this, who would you like to see lynched today as of this moment?

Fairly scummy quote, but not representative of my feelings I think.

[Xdaamno]

This is annoying, and made me consider replacing out. Mafia sucks here because of the meta that you have to have no life to play it.

No, that's bullshit. You're not being asked anything unreasonable, you've largely avoided posting substance all game. The most you post is when you come under heavy attack, and even then you seem to defend yourself more than you look for scum.

pffffft

[Xdaamno]

And to expand on that, a prod and request for content is quite reasonable when all your posts today up until your last have been fluff and not said anything about your suspicions. To say that you're being asked to have no life is an obvious exageration.

The mutual suspiscion on me in the last few posts is, objectively, from my point of view, scum-driven and has gone unnoticed because of a tired, bloodthirsty town.

It pretty much has to be, since everyone in the game except you has expressed suspicion of you.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the 'xdaamno is obvscum, here's our plan to deal with him' position that only a couple of people have expressed.

[Xdaamno]

Also:

And to expand on that, a prod and request for content is quite reasonable when

all your posts today up until your last have been fluff and not said anything about your suspicions

. To say that you're being asked to have no life is

an obvious exageration

.

Fail.

[Xdaamno]

The 3 posts you've made this game day but before this real life day don't say anything about your suspicions. Quoting me and saying fail doesn't change that fact.

How many scum do we have left in the game?

Right, because I thought that your post was wrong simply because I could quote it and add 'Fail'. Uh-huh.

I'll go quote my own posts, because your method of referencing them without actually quoting them is exaggeratively incriminating,

=======================

Page 37 Votecount

charter (0/4):
Green Crayons(1/4): Incognito
Incognito (0/4):
Korts (0/4):
Patrick (0/4):
Xdaamno (0/4):

Not voting (5/6):

charter, Green Crayons, Patrick, Xdaamno, Korts

With 6 alive, it's 4 to lynch.
=======================

Countdown To Deadline

[Xdaamno]

Mafia sucks here because of the meta that you have to have no life to play it.

Ha. I have quite a busy life, and I still make time to post at least once a day. What's your excuse?

I, too, would like to know where your suspicions lie, what your thoughts are about the set-up, and what your thoughts are about everything that's been discussed the past few pages.

Heh, I'm not saying that I don't have time to read the thread, I'm saying I don't have enough time and interest to make myself go back and check every post every time I visit for an interesting thing to comment on, rather than checking the last few.

I'm suspiscious of Erg0. Can't remember the setup details off the top of my head. Can't remember the content of the last few pages, and I don't care enough about this game to go look


My posts this day before the last two pages:

I'm vanilla, and Erg0 suddenly seems hilarious to me after a few days off this game.

You seemed pretty sold on me being town before -- why did that change just because of my claim?

I think he was quite clear - it is unlikely to have such a "wack" setup with such a good mod.

"whack", sorry

I suppose you were right. You're seeing the thin edge of the wedge.

[Xdaamno]

bump?

Neat. Who are your top suspects?

[Xdaamno]

Ah, I suppose my point wasn't too obvious in retrospect: that "bump" makes you look very town to me. I want to know who you suspect so that I can start building a proper case myself.

[Xdaamno]

EBWOP: with your suspiscions as a starting point.

[Xdaamno]

bump?

I think this is a town post because scum would not gain any heat from not posting this, but are risking jolting the town into action by doing so, or just by gaining attention in general.

It's useful to have someone you think town to name their suspiscions because their opinions are more likely to be genuine, meaning the the people they suspect have a decent chance of being scum.

On the long-term, I think you've been very town-like, and so I'm going to put value in your opinion.

[Xdaamno]

thinking the final scums are GC, Patrick, and Xdaamno.

and I really can't see GC or Patrick as scum with Xdaamno due to all of their interactions during Day 1

clarify please?

[Xdaamno]

Mod:

Prod our resident social butterfly Xdaamno please?

Been a bit busy this past week.

[Xdaamno]

Ether's post definately need more looking at. I'm surprised nobody else has done this in length.

[Xdaamno]

Out of habit, I'd like to point out posts such as these make it pretty clear I'm not likely to be scum:

Charter, you were in the second game Incognito linked to--what do you think of Xdaamno?

The "look at Xdaamno's posts [up to 253]" method: Canary town. That's it. There's a reason I asked Xdaamno and Izzy. I'm assuming from the fact that Xdaamno's keeping his Patvote here without any update on his view of him that he is not in fact particularly suspicious of anyone else at this point. (Xdaamno has this pattern of getting into theory arguments without commenting on his reads of players. Urgh.)

I have stopped reading the Xdaamno/Canary spat. I'm interpreting Xdaamno's failure to have voted anyone else as him not actually finding anyone else scummy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(For the record, Patrick's starting to feel better now, though I don't get why he interpretted my 76 as support.

I thought you were mildly supporting his reasons for voting me, have I somehow misread that?

That is what I was doing. Heh--looking back at your 85 I think

I

misread your interpretation. I'm not sure what you were getting at with "strange," looking closer. I agreed with OGML and

didn't

vote you for it.

I am eagerly awaiting Korts's catchup post.

[Xdaamno]

(the first two were cut out of longer posts)

[Xdaamno]

I've always had a bad feeling about Patrick, and a check of Ether's posts makes me think a scumpair is feasible:

Izzy's 250 bugs me, putting both me and Yosarian in her top three. The second part of her case on me is bullshit--I do not need her opinion to bandwagon people, thank you very much. I didn't get what Patrick saw in it at the time, either. (Epilogue: Incognito is stealing my lines.)

Assumes Patrick is in the right here.

Patrick, I worried about you very early on in i10, too, before moving on, even if I didn't say it out loud. There it was more anxiousness for you to post; here your posts on Page 1 actually bugged me a bit. I twitched at your apathetic acknowledgement of my Incogvote, and again at that vagueness with Skitzer in your 20. Yeah, I dismissed it, but it was there.

I'mma unvote; vote: Yosarian2. Filtering his posts, there's just not a lot there. And I hate the claim. (I don't think Incognito is scum. The Patrick/Yosarian connection is too blatant for my tastes as well.)

Patrick, what was weird about my agreement?

Direct speech on a peer-to-peer level, but looking back, she does this a few times to other people so null-tell.

I could flip to Xdaamno or Korts. I'm all for Xdaamno accepting Patrick's defense--except that he's still voting him. Which is it? (For the record, Patrick's starting to feel better now, though I don't get why he interpretted my 76 as support. After starting this aside with "for the record" I was half-tempted to load it with more qualifiers but I won't.)

Hmm... town tell for Patrick, I suppose.

I'll have a look at another suspect before placing a vote.

[Xdaamno]

Can I have a summary of charter's claim and reasons why people think it is true? I can't remember.

[Xdaamno]

Izzy's 250 bugs me, putting both me and Yosarian in her top three. The second part of her case on me is bullshit--I do not need her opinion to bandwagon people, thank you very much. I didn't get what Patrick saw in it at the time, either. (Epilogue: Incognito is stealing my lines.)

Assumes Patrick is in the right here.

It actually looks like the exact opposite to me, she's telling me she thinks I'm wrong, not assuming I'm right. How did you draw a connection from this?

I still think it's pretty clear. She was assuming he did see something valuable, and was probing to find what it was.

[Xdaamno]

Can I have a summary of charter's claim and reasons why people think it is true? I can't remember.

still waiting on this

[Xdaamno]

Then it's between Patrick and GC for me. GC's jump to push my lynch as soon as he came under fire is obviously suspiscious, but his continued use of illogical arguments make me doubt the possibility he was just attacking me to make himself look town, yet unreliable. If that's not the reason for his attacks, I would guess it was being angry at me, which is a town-tell (I don't think I've been scummy at all lately, yet he's still pushing).

Those are just speculations, and are minor tells, though, imo. I'm still not sure which of them to pick.

[Xdaamno]

GC's jump to push my lynch as soon as he came under fire is obviously suspiscious, but his continued use of illogical arguments make me doubt the possibility he was just attacking me to make himself look town, yet unreliable.

I've been attacking your scummy ass from Day One. You fail at legitimacy.

That's not what I meant. I looked scummy a while back. I don't look as scummy now. You've been just as relentless throughout the game (which is

optimal

for a town player thinking I am scum, but is almost never what happens.)

[Xdaamno]

Korts, why are you voting GC? What do you think of Xdaamo and Patrick?

Xdaamo, that's a terrible way of defending yourself. You haven't been scummy recently because you haven't been in the game. Also, your role didn't switch after day one, so your scumminess then is just as relevant now as it was day one.

I think missing the point the first time was acceptable because I wasn't clear at all. After I explained it, though?

I do not think that the fact I have not been scummy recently makes the scuminess earlier on any less valid. I was instead pointing out that I had stopped making scummy moves recently, and yet GC has continued to attack me just as strongly as ever. This is an observation on GC's behavior, not some kind of defence.

[Xdaamno]

The fact that each of those pairings has something odd has actually led me to consider it just being one mafiate and an SK left: in that case I would think Xdaamno is mafia and GC is the serial killer. My issue there is the balance of the game seems pretty ridiculous. I know Yos was a miller and that's a slight disadvantage, but it still seems like we have so much power in that scenario, and vollkan's previous game was much more balanced. GC and Xdaamno are both scum in most plausible scenarios I can think of so I'm thinking one of them should be lynched, with GC looking like the safer bet in case we do have 8-2-2 and Xdaamno is red.

This is an interesting point. I could maybe, maybe, maybe see this kind of scenario. I think the three investigative roles is also more of a disadvantage than an advantage also though so perhaps that's what vollkan was going for here. Multiple red herrings designed to either cause mislynches or force people to lynch others NOT based on role claims but rather actual scummy behavior.

Anywho, I'm still cool with a Green Crayons lynch.

I'm still not so sure on a GC lynch, because I could easily see his emotion being genuine. Could you be persuaded to go Patrick today?

[Xdaamno]

Also, what happened to this:

Green Crayons looks scummy to me. I have a feeling his pathetic insults at me are not because he is an angry person, but because he is trying to replace any suspiscion I have of him with an emotion.

Incog: In light of all of this, who would you like to see lynched today as of this moment?

Fairly scummy quote, but not representative of my feelings I think.

Wow, I was mean

I guess I looked back for a quote, and couldn't find one. That was probably just my feeling at the time, which isn't entirely invalid.

[Xdaamno]

worst move you could make, imo

[Xdaamno]

(Sarnath'd)

[Xdaamno]

Didn't realise it was directed at me - I recongized it was a question, saw there was no 'Xdaamno,', and skimmed it.

Do you have any suspicions of Korts/Incognito/charter? Your posts give me the impression you don't and that you've narrowed it down just to me and GC. If you're protown, why so picky between the two of us? Wouldn't we both have to be scum from your perspective?

I think Korts and Incognito are town, and charter is almost certainly town because of his claim. The fact that all these players are not trying to lynch any of the other players is a great indicator that the scum is in GC and Patrick. I think there's probably 3 scum, but I might be wrong about that and I might be wrong about the 3 people I ruled out, so I'm still making my mind up who I want to lynch, but I'm not too fussed.

=======================

Page 40 Votecount

charter (0/4):
Green Crayons(2/4): Incognito, Korts
Incognito (0/4):
Korts (0/4):
Patrick (0/4):
Xdaamno (2/4): Green Crayons, charter

Not voting (2/6):

Patrick, Xdaamno,

With 6 alive, it's 4 to lynch.
=======================

Countdown To Deadline

[Xdaamno]

Vote: GC

[Xdaamno]

Vote: GC

, even

[Xdaamno]

Should have realised that GC/Ether didn't really make sense, and that GC SK would incriminate me...

I'll personally be disappointed if the town loses this game (aside: used "town" in third person because I felt you might think I was intentionally 'buddying up'), because Patrick is looking like obvscum to me at this point from my perspective...

(stopped there because I knew I was lying - he looks town to me in his last few posts, so I went to consider Korts again.)

Are we so sure that Korts can't be scum? Very recent posts like these make it look like he's trying to steamroll this, which is very un-town:

Lynch Xdaamo?

Lynch GC now, Xdaamno tomorrow?

[Xdaamno]

Oh, of course, nl

Vote: NL

to confirm

[Xdaamno]

Well I protected charter, but my role PM specifically states that I die instead, so apparently mafia sent in a no kill.

Confirm FOS: Korts

Vote: nolynch

[Xdaamno]

I would heavily advocate a re-read of me as an individual, rather than just my interaction with Ether. Every player has that kind of passive relationship with a couple of players in a game like this, and it seems to me like I've gotten unlucky that she flipped scum. You're taking a weighty gamble by choosing me over a player who is more scummy by themselves such as Korts or Patrick,imo.

I'd usually be pushing for one or the other, but I'm really not sure at this point - I'd like to here what everyone thinks.

[Xdaamno]

I was getting pretty worried because it looked like I was going to be lynched, and I went over a lot of things that I could say at this point. Almost everything you say when trying to look town can be construed as 'trying to look town', especially at this point.

-_-

[Xdaamno]

Full post here. As I said at the time, this seems alot like manufactured suspicion. Ether's play was different here to her town-meta, but I don't think her writing style was out of the ordinary (linguistic cliches or not). Plus Xdaamno has played with Ether before so I think he's well aware of her writing style. On day 2 I think Ether's buddy would have been reluctant to bus her because roleblocker is a very useful role, especially if there might be another scum faction in the game, and his behaviour of pretty much ignoring/deflecting the Ether-wagon then suddenly becoming suspicious of her late on is exactly what I'd expect a scumbud to do.

If you think that was how Ether always talks, I know her far better than you do. It was different to her posts in this very game.

I didn't ignore or 'deflect' (whatever that means) the Ether wagon at all, imo. I just payed attention to it the least out of all the major wagons, and, like I said, I think I got unlucky in that she was the one who got lynched and flipped scum.

[Xdaamno]

Can someone less stupid than me make a list of each player's roleclaims? Mine is townie. If all you guys have interesting roles, that makes me significantly less likely to be scum.

[Xdaamno]

If you think that was how Ether always talks, I know her far better than you do. It was different to her posts in this very game.

I doubt very much that you know her better than I do. If you really think she was using linguistic cliches in such a way that was majorly scummy, please give me a few examples. I'm sceptical.

Can someone less stupid than me make a list of each player's roleclaims? Mine is townie. If all you guys have interesting roles, that makes me significantly less likely to be scum.

Me, you: Townie
charter: Masoniser
Korts: Bodyguard

Yeah, I forgot you know her personally, I was just being dramatic. For examples though, aren't you looking for the one I gave you

in the post we're talking about

?

[Xdaamno]

I'm not too fussed which posts of hers you use to give an example. I can see one or two in the post you quoted, if say "pfft" or "square 1" count as linguistic cliches, but that doesn't seem anything out of the ordinary. And it's hard to believe something like that could cause such a big jump in suspicion anyway.

Yo, Korts. Did you ever read that stuff you fell behind on?

No.

Your 705 reads to me like you were aware of the softclaim. When did you catch it? (And yes, I do think you should have been more concerned with OGML than with Charter.)

Ether, I know what you're trying to do here. You're seriously trying to get me to reveal the secret behind the AIM logs that Patrick and I have on your typical play and that's

not

gonna happen.

I'm curious, but I'll live.

Farscape and Big Love (claims here and here, respectively) are the games that caused me to shift my attitude on claimed protective roles. Suspicious ones are good at getting themselves out of the way without my help. I really don't like his sneaking around OGML, though--see above--and am annoyed that he survived at all.

I needed Korts's answer first.

Pfft.

My blitz fell through when it came out that Skitzer was behind the slow start. This put me back on Square 1 without anything to show for it, and I didn't get back into the mood.

Followed shortly thereafter by, "I don't know what causes that reaction, though I'm pretty sure thick familiarity is a negative, if anything." Pretty funny. Thick familiarity is a negative when you're scum.

It's a negative anyway. My activity owned in 707

most of it

despite coming in having played with q21 once and Mizzy twice, and not knowing anyone very well. Patrick replaced in later, but even he lurked. Impatience and frustration fuel me to dominate a low-profile game--in contrast, I'm more likely to be stunted and even replaced when almost everyone's competent.

Lots of linguistic cliches in her last few posts, such as this one. I think that's a very strong scum tell because townies are never complacent. So, yes, an Ether wagon looks very good to me.

You missed "catch it", "I'll live", "shift my attitude", "suspiscious ones", "out of the way", "sneaking around", "my blitz", "behind the slow start", "anything to show", back into the mood", "it's a negative anyway", "owned", the small text in "most of it", "fuel me", "dominate", "low-profile", "in contrast", and "stunted".

Lots of little things, but they really add up. Yes, I see your point that it looks unlikely that I would attack Ether without saying anything beforehand like this, but I really can't believe you could possibly imagine town players saying that.

If you were being honest here, I think you would have made an effort to get what I was saying - I think it's unlikely you just didn't understand me, because it's pretty clear.

[Xdaamno]

The last paragraph was investigative. I made a decision that if you attacked me, I wouldn't try to lynch you, but if you just defended yourself, I would.

I didn't expect you to

vote

. That pretty much confirms you as town, because scum want to wait before voting anyone. I'm not going to vote you back, on the off-chance that you'll unvote me and not lose this game.

[Xdaamno]

Oh, that's two. You and Korts.

Vote: Korts

[Xdaamno]

Well played, Patrick.

[Xdaamno]

I think I could have done a lot better. I'm proud of my fake flip-out on GC, though was kinda bummed nobody suspected it might not be real

[Xdaamno]

Sorry guys! I know I suck at looking town. I'll enjoy watching this game afterwards, but I regret actually joining it.

GC, I know I can come across as an asshole sometimes, but you've taken it way to far and it's hurting my enjoyment of the game. I hope I don't have to play with you again.

Vote: Xdaamno

Before somebody hammers, I want to do a long analysis. I'll start making notes.

I meant this, which saved me from being lynched.